Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Woods, 2:12-CR-00330-WBS. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160330f19 Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANT'S RULE 29 MOTION WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Todd Pickles, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, and Michael E. Hansen, attorney for defendant Dianna Woods, that the time for defendant to file a Rule 29 motion is hereby extended, and that the following briefing schedule be adopt
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANT'S RULE 29 MOTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Todd Pickles, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, and Michael E. Hansen, attorney for defendant Dianna Woods, that the time for defendant to file a Rule 29 motion is hereby extended, and that the following briefing schedule be adopted:

1. Defendant's Rule 29 motion will be filed on June 3, 2016; 2. Government's opposition to the motion will be filed on June 17, 2016; 3. Defendant's reply to the opposition will be filed on June 24, 2016; and 4. The motion will be heard on July 11, 2016.

Defendant's counsel has requested a transcript of the jury trial in this matter, which is necessary for citation purposes in the Rule 29 motion. The transcript is due to be produced on May 4, 2016. Accordingly, the above dates are contingent upon timely delivery of the trial transcript.

The parties also stipulate the previously-scheduled status conference date of April 11, 2016, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on July 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

This continuance is requested so that the status conference and defendant's Rule 29 motion may be heard concurrently.

The Government concurs with this request.

Further, the parties agree and stipulate the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare), from the date of the parties' stipulation, March 28, 2016, to and including July 11, 2016.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the need to bring the retrial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, March 28, 2016, to and including July 11, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the April 11, 2016, status conference shall be continued until July 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer